As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Tator]

He had a chance to witness to the world and he copped out because he thought the meat would look like something to be embarrassed about. That is my take.

Every member should see "I don't know that we teach it" as a lie. Every non-member (at worst) would look at it as a weird doctrine.

What would have been the implications of him stating the meat?

He didn't simply say "I don't know that we teach it". He developed his answer with the effect that I described. I agree that when someone with an antiLDS agenda repeats only that part without addressing the rest one might get the impression you claim, but since that is not the only thing he said, I trust in the intellectually honest which an antiLDS critic can never be.

I guess I can quote the whole interview every time I post if that would help you. Addressing the whole interview or just the snippet does not help your case. The effect he developed created the effect of a lie. Why the goal of an "effect" and not the truth? The effect was a lie to every member and a deception/half truth/sanitized version/correlation committee style answer for the public that is not aware of Mormonism. You call it milk I don't. Gordon and yourself are the one's being intellectually dishonest, I guess all for effect.

Where is your buddy Obi? I would like his and your intellectually honesty displayed here on the definition of doctrine.

[_why me]

He had a chance to witness to the world and he copped out because he thought the meat would look like something to be embarrassed about. That is my take.

Every member should see "I don't know that we teach it" as a lie. Every non-member (at worst) would look at it as a weird doctrine.

What would have been the implications of him stating the meat?

I really don't think that he was giving meat much thought. I don't think that there was time to think or analyze the question. I think that he understood the question they way he believed he understood it. Thus, he made a statement at general conference about it. And there was nothing in that statement about not wanting to give meat.

My take for the upteenth time: He misuderstood the question. The King Follett discourses, although something beautiful and unique to christianity are not doctrine. And the LDS church does not teach the king follett discourses as a doctrine, however, it does mention some major doctrinal topics that the LDS church does support as doctrine.

[_Jason Bourne]

I know it's in Gospel Principles..... Chap. 47 Exaltation

It's still not officially doctrine, because it's not in the scriptures. It's a true idea, hence why it's taught. Teaching manuals teach a LOT of things that aren't in scriptures, on all kinds of subjects.

Listen, if you guys are so insistent on calling it doctrine, then call it "unofficial doctrine".
As I've listed before, it's not officially in the scriptures, the KFD is not scripture, there have been no First Presidency announcements indicating it's doctrine, etc. etc.

For something to be actual "official" doctrine, it needs to be in scriptures, Revelation from the Prophets to the Church, the Holy Ghost, and common consent. You have maybe one or two of those, but that's it. It's taught because it is a truth that is to be understood by revelation, not that it's emphasised, not that it's not taught much, etc. If a person didn't go to Gospel Principles, they would basically never hear it taught. Of course, we've been teaching Gospel Principles lessons two sunday's a month in Priesthood and Relief Society for the last year, so, that's not really true at the moment.

Anyway, it's a teaching, not all teachings are "doctrine"..... Period.

This is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the way the Church understands and communicates it. The Church does not teach what it does not consider doctrine without specifically noting it as such (the Bible Dictionary is a good example of this). The Church's own statement in Approaching Mormon Doctrine tells us that after doctrine is established by the FP and Qo12 it is officially published and such publication is THE identifying factor for doctrine.

The doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but neither you nor I is qualified to establish it. Neither you nor I can read the scriptures alone and tell the rest of the world what LDS doctrine is without such doctrine being published elsewhere.

A prime example is John 3:5. To the LDS Church, the water and the Spirit refer to water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. To evangelicals, they mean mortal birth and the born again experience. You would NOT have been able to present the LDS view without the LDS Church itself (the FP and Qo12) having somewhere first published what the correct interpretation of the verse is.

You should see this as totally consistant with the scripture as they tell us explicitly that no prophecy (gospel teaching) is of private interpretation and that revelation by the Spirit is scripture. This means that the manuals and other official publications are more important than the scriptures themselves in terms of communicating what the doctrine is as the interpretation of scripture is usually not found in the scriptures themselves.

Therefore, that God was once a mortal man is an official doctrine of the Church. Anyone who has taken the Teacher Improvement courses or served in the Church for any reasonable length of time or has been a missionary understands all this. I've never met a member in real life who doesn't understand this. I sit in council with GA's from time to time when they visit our Stake or Region and have asked the question and heard it from their lips including the approval of Approaching Mormon Doctrine in support of it.

If the Church publishes it, it is doctrine in context unless otherwise noted or superceeded by a later publication. And while we're at it, the JST excerpts are scripture by the Church's own definition of them.

Thank you BC. Obiwan, what say you?

[_AtticusFinch]

Hinkley lied. Bottom line. Just as he lied to investigators during Hoffman debacle.

Mormons taught God was once a sinful man and have spent the last many years trying to distance themselves from that awful doctrine.

It is in the gospel principles manual. Hinckley didn't lie. However, when I see the pope give an interview like Hinckley did, you can chime in with your comments. Hinckley was an old man at the time of the interview and the questions were coming rather fast. He did a good job and came across like a nice old man. Give a ninety year old something man a break. May your mind be sharp as a tack when you get that age.

Wow. Again, I had hoped you had grown up.

Hinkley lied. It matters not about ANYONE else giving an interview. This was about GBH's interview.

But, for the record, The Pope came to the United States and gave several interviews. Then he called a meeting of other religious denominations, and two LDS Apostles ran as fast as they could to sit at the Pope's feet and listen.

[_Joseph]

Br. Faust in the Fall 96 conference after quoting the 13th article of faith - "We believe in being honest..."

"There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead. The degree to which each of us tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth depends on our conscience."

*****************************************

“Nothing else is quite so despicable and cowardly as a lie,” said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

In the revelation recorded in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Prophet Joseph Smith “specifies … as embracing the law of the Church” (D&C 42: Headnote), the Lord says, “Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out.” (D&C 42:21.) This means excommunicated from the Church.

Unfortunately, lying is currently a widespread practice. It is one of the most disturbing and peace-destroying practices in our society.

The sad fact is that there is a growing trend to regard “getting caught” as worse than “lying.”

There are many individuals among us who, as a consequence of lying, are bereft of composure and happiness. Society generally is suffering for the same reason. Lying is one of the cardinal evils of our day.

No one is justified in lying because someone else has lied.

http://LDS.org/ensign/1975/08/dont-lie- ... query=lies

****************************************

Referring to the scripture, help the young women understand that eternal truth does not change. The truth that God has revealed to us here on earth is the same that was taught in our premortal life, and it will be the same eternally. It does not change.

Post the wordstrip “Truth Does Not Change.”

http://LDS.org/manual/young-women-manua ... on+lies%3f

**********************************************

[_Tator]

I really don't think that he was giving meat much thought.

No kidding.

I don't think that there was time to think or analyze the question.

Why me for the upteenth time: He had plenty of time between the Larry King interview and the Time magazine interview to get his thoughts together. He said what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it.

I think that he understood the question they way he believed he understood it.

No kidding, another Einstein moment.

Thus, he made a statement at general conference about it.

This was a CYA for the Chapel Mormons.

And there was nothing in that statement about not wanting to give meat.

No kidding, the last thing he wants to do is discuss meat to the masses whether in conference or on TV.

My take for the upteenth time: He misuderstood the question.

Bull feathers, for the same reasons stated for the upteenth time.

The King Follett discourses, although something beautiful and unique to christianity are not doctrine.

Who cares, argue that with Obi and bc. Remember the "notion of the doctrine" is the same.

And the LDS church does not teach the king follett discourses as a doctrine,

Who cares, essentially, the teaching is the same.

however, it does mention some major doctrinal topics that the LDS church does support as doctrine

More doublespeak from you, for the upteenth time.

[_bcspace]

He didn't simply say "I don't know that we teach it". He developed his answer with the effect that I described. I agree that when someone with an antiLDS agenda repeats only that part without addressing the rest one might get the impression you claim, but since that is not the only thing he said, I trust in the intellectually honest which an antiLDS critic can never be.

I don't know that it was a lie, but it wasn't exactly the whole truth, either. In my view, it was a fudging of an answer to avoid dealing with a difficult and possibly embarrassing topic on national TV. Does holding that opinion make me intellectually dishonest? Probably to you, but not to me.

Not necessarily. But it might brand you as one who doesn't go to Church very often and doesn't quite know the doctrine. Heck, the fact that it's found in chapter 47 ought to tell you something alone the lines of what I've been saying.

[_Runtu]

Not necessarily. But it might brand you as one who doesn't go to Church very often and doesn't quite know the doctrine. Heck, the fact that it's found in chapter 47 ought to tell you something alone the lines of what I've been saying.

What is the doctrine I'm not understanding?

[_Jason Bourne]

Bump for Obiwan

If you are here please address BCs comments about God being a Man as doctrine.

[_bcspace]

Not necessarily. But it might brand you as one who doesn't go to Church very often and doesn't quite know the doctrine. Heck, the fact that it's found in chapter 47 ought to tell you something alone the lines of what I've been saying.

What is the doctrine I'm not understanding?

Milk before meat. Casting pearls before swine. etc. It's pretty obvious to me that's what he's thinking about as he formulates an answer.